Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Talk Page/Forum page for talking about the topic

There are many Talk pages in which people give there opinion this is not what the page is for but it is something that seem to be very desired. The idea of a forum like page would be very useful talk pages offering review on movie pages for example could be something useful for picking a movie to see some times the page are just a spoilers and if there were reviews you could read the review without having the movie spoiled .To often pages discussing politics or history are told from the POV of those who were in control.Soldiers who served in Iraq offering stories about their service would be very insightful all to often the little details are over looked. a simple story of one day in Iraq telling what the berics were like how they ate this would never be in a normal encyclopedia but that's what is the benefit of Wikipedia offering the most complete view . The incessant unceasing perpetual, continuous, nonstop, around/round-the-clock, uninterrupted, unbroken, unremitting, persistent, relentless, unrelenting, unrelieved, walk over POV would be solved put the FACTS on the article and the OPINION on the talk/forum page.If anyone likes my ideas and bad spelling and grammar and has Ideas on how to go about adding a forum tab to the top an every page email me [email address removed]

I don't know about a "forum" since that could encourage tangential and unending discussion, which is not the idea of an encyclopedia. However I think an "opinion" or "anecdotal commentary" page would be an excellent idea. A place to gather useful information that may be less strictly factual, or more objective in some sense (and not intended for eventual publication due to it's nature).Josephmarty (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards

Is there some reason why noticeboards aren't explicitly mentioned in the guideline? I ask because I consider them to be talk pages, and therefore subject to the rules regarding staying on topic, civility and so on, but have been challenged regarding removing off-topic comments (per the section "How to use article talk pages / Keep on topic). Are there separate guidelines for noticeboard discussions? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forbid comments from anonymous editors?

Is it appropriate to keep a general policy on a user talk page of deleting all comments from anonymous users, with the implication that they are deleted unread? I'm not yet ready to name names, but I know of an editor who leans toward this policy. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Users have considerable latitude over their talk pages. However, deletion of a something is taken as a sign of the user's awareness of it. Ty 03:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That re-statement of "user talk page" guideline section is not quite accurate; here is what it states:

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.

The removal of a warning (not just "something") is understood ("taken") as a "sign of the user's awareness of it" in the words of Tyrenius above; but archiving is still the preference, as stated. Straight deletion of "something" that is not "a warning" annoys some users and other users practice deleting whatever they want to delete from the user talk page. Users' practices are not consistent throughout Wikipedia, and the "guidelines" do allow users to remove "comments" from their own talk pages (not other users' talk pages and not article talk pages or policy talk pages) "freely"; Wikipedia etiquette also relates in respect accorded to other users' talk and user pages (both included in concept "user space"). So more about how to behave re: other users' talk pages and one's own talkpage might be found in both Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL. --NYScholar (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in relation to the first post w/ the question; the person probably refers to his or her own user talk page; it is not appropriate to remove "good faith" comments (whether anon. IP user or registered user w/ log-in identity) from other users' talk pages; anon. IP users can post comments on article talk pages and user talk pages; they should not be posting comments on other users' user pages. The grounds for removing anon. IP user comments or registered user comments from an article talk page would be blatant vandalism or total inappropriateness (not commenting on editing the article (but even that is sometimes dubious--I removed 2 totally-inappropriate comments from this talk page today; they had nothing to do with the subject (talk page guidelines) and seem to have been posted in the wrong place entirely; one seemed like and advertisement for printers. --NYScholar (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Clear-cut vandalism can be removed from one's own talk page and doing that is an exception to WP:3RR: see WP:3RR#Exceptions; see the exceptions stated there for more information. --NYScholar (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Because comments are supposed to be signed with 4 tildes (time/date stamped w/ user signature or IP id.), those that are not signed are either going to get signed by a bot automatically, or if one wants to keep them can be signed and dated by one's adding an "unsigned" template, which will produce the actual IP or log-in id. and time stamp; that kind of information can be retrieved from the editing history of the page (if one wants to keep the comment and respond to it, e.g.. --NYScholar (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

After having responded to the question in this section, I scrolled up to the talkheader for this talk page and see the following:

Do not ask general questions on this page. Do not comment on articles on this page. This page is for discussing the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines".

Such general questions raised here would be better placed at the link given in that header template and not discussed here. This talk page is not for asking "general questions" about the subject (not a "message board" or "forum" on the subject); it's for discussing how to improve the article: editing matters pertaining to improving the article (content/format/style/source, e.g.). (This is not a "help" page pertaining to talk page maintenance.) --NYScholar (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of comments becoming more common?

I am noticing a greater tendency to delete comments that others find inappropriate. In extreme cases, this is justified by the guideline, but the wording is consistent with doing this only in extreme cases. On Bristol Palin multiple comments have been deleted by other editors, citing this guidline but giving no further explanation,. One deleted comment contained a racial slur (I let that one be), one accused Wikipedia of censorship (another editor reverted), a third accused Wikipedia of being a right-wing cabal (that was refreshing: we are usually accused of being a left-wing cabal), and tha tlast seemed to be a WP:POINT deletion. I reverted the last two.

I hope this doesn't become a slow-moving revert war on a talk page. I would appreciate some additional eyes, and some discussion of which, if any, of these actions were proper. Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 12:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article talk page is there for improving the article and addressing content. If editors have more general issues about wikipedia, they should go to a general forum such as WP:VP. Too many talk pages resemble message boards, rather than workshops. The guideline permits "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Ty 12:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)